Han Yung Ting v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking Conviction Appeal Dismissed

Han Yung Ting appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction on two charges of drug trafficking under s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of Tan Kian Ming, who initially identified Han as his drug supplier but later recanted. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, finding Tan's initial statements to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) more credible than his testimony in court, and concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against drug trafficking conviction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant guilty based on witness statements and corroborating evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Han Yung TingAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostSubhas Anandan, Anand Nalachandran
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyConviction UpheldWonEddy Tham

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Subhas AnandanHarry Elias Partnership
Anand NalachandranHarry Elias Partnership
Eddy ThamDeputy Public Prosecutor

4. Facts

  1. Tan Kian Ming was arrested with drugs.
  2. Tan admitted receiving drugs from a male Chinese in a white car.
  3. Tan identified the appellant as the person who handed him the drugs.
  4. The appellant claimed he was visiting a transvestite at the time of the arrest.
  5. Tan recanted his identification of the appellant at trial, claiming assault by officers.
  6. CNB officers saw Tan alighting from a white car at Block 40.
  7. The appellant's car was the only white car in the car park with a hot engine and blue internal light.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Han Yung Ting v Public Prosecutor, MA 48/2003, [2003] SGHC 268

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tan Kian Ming arrested with drugs.
Appellant claimed trial and was convicted on drug trafficking charges.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Drug Trafficking
    • Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of drug trafficking.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1954] 3 All ER 745
  3. Weight of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court placed more weight on the witness' prior statements to the police than on his oral testimony in court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 1 SLR 143
      • [1997] 3 SLR 158
      • [1999] 1 SLR 25
      • [2000] 3 SLR 750
      • [2001] 2 SLR 125

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against Conviction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals
  • Drug Trafficking

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ladd v MarshallCourt of AppealYes[1954] 3 All ER 745England and WalesCited for the three conditions to be fulfilled to justify acceptance of additional evidence.
Liow Siow Long v PPHigh CourtYes[1970] 1 MLJ 40MalaysiaCited regarding the credibility of family members as witnesses for the accused.
Thirumalai Kumar v PPHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 434SingaporeCited regarding the unreliability of alibis provided by interested witnesses.
Chung Tuck Kwai v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR 693SingaporeCited regarding the problem of credibility when adducing fresh evidence at the appeal stage.
Lim Ah Poh v PPCourt of AppealYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact.
Ng Soo Hin v PPHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 105SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact.
PP v Hla WinHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR 424SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 656SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb a lower court’s findings of fact when it hinges on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses.
PP v Poh Oh SimHigh CourtYes[1990] SLR 1047SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court must be convinced that the decision is wrong to reverse the decision of the trial judge.
PP v Azman bin AbdullahHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR 704SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court must be convinced that the decision is wrong to reverse the decision of the trial judge.
PP v Sng Siew NgohHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 143SingaporeCited for the principle that previous inconsistent statements made by a witness to a police officer are admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein.
PP v Tan Kim Seng Construction Pte Ltd & AnotherHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 158SingaporeCited for guidance on the application of s 147(6) of the Evidence Act regarding the weight to be accorded to a prior inconsistent statement.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 25SingaporeCited for guidance on the application of s 147(6) of the Evidence Act regarding the weight to be accorded to a prior inconsistent statement.
Selvarajan James v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 750SingaporeCited for guidance on the application of s 147(6) of the Evidence Act regarding the weight to be accorded to a prior inconsistent statement.
Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 125SingaporeCited for guidance on the application of s 147(6) of the Evidence Act regarding the weight to be accorded to a prior inconsistent statement.
Goh Ah Yew v PPCourt of AppealYes[1949] 1 MLJ 150MalaysiaCited for the rule that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witnesses.
Abu Bakar v RCourt of AppealYes[1963] 1 MLJ 288MalaysiaCited for the rule that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witnesses.
PP v Nurashikin bte Ahmad BorhanHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR 52SingaporeCited for the qualification to the rule that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witnesses.
Choo Chang Teik v PPHigh CourtYes[1991] 3 MLJ 423MalaysiaCited for the qualification to the rule that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witnesses.
Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 789SingaporeCited for the qualification to the rule that no adverse inference can be drawn against the defence if it chooses not to call any witnesses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 5(1)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185)Singapore
s 257(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)Singapore
s 147(6) Evidence Act (Cap 97)Singapore
s 135(2) Evidence ActSingapore
s 116 Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • CNB
  • Central Narcotics Bureau
  • Accomplice
  • Impeachment of Witness
  • Prior Inconsistent Statement
  • Alibi
  • Fresh Evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Appeal
  • Evidence
  • Witness Testimony
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Evidence
  • Criminal Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Evidence